pf_01912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a need to which the development contributes is Grupe v. California Coastal Commission, 166 Cal. App. 3d 148 (19B5). In this case, Grupe sought a new development permit for a single family home adjoining beach property. The Commission attached a condition requiring him to offer to dedicate a public access easement along the beach fronting his property. In fact, he wanted to build a large single family home on a 15,250 square foot beach -front lot. He was given the permit to build the home on approximately 5,000 square feet as long as he dedicated a lateral easement for public access and passive recreational uses along the shoreline. The easement encompas.;ed approximately 8,000 to 10,000 square feet or approximately two thirds of the total area of his single parcel. Grupe's lot was just one of many lots within a private "locked gate" residential community; none of the other parcels or, either side of him along the beach were burdened by a similar condition and it was unlikely that such conditions could be imposed on those parcels in the future. The easement in question was "lateral" and thus ran along the coast, without providing "vertical" access to the sea from public road. Grupe brought an action for administrative mandamus (C.C.p. 1094.5) to seek invalidation of the access condition on a variety of grounds. He also brought an action for claim or damages for violation of his federal constitutional rights under 42 u.S.C. Section 1983. The court of appeals upheld the lateral beach access condition even though his project had not created the need for access. The court went on to say that the condition did not effect a taking of property for public use without just compensation within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment since the condition had not robbed the property owner of all reasonable use and economic value of his property; also, the property owner received a substantial benefit from the Commission's decision to allow development of his property. Thus, the court held the condition did not violate the federal constitution and reversed the trial court's judgment for damages and attorneys' fees under Section 19P-3. This case is an excellent review of the law on dedications and whether or not such a dedication amounts to a taking. Before going to the exact ruling on whether or not exact condition was legal, the court reviewed the general validity of all exactions. Grupe argued that the particular exaction is valid only if it (1) related to needs to which the development contributes, and (2) will directly or indirectly benefit the development. The Attorney General on behalf of the Commission vigorously maintained that there is -10